Response as expected above. So, the sumarize is; it depends on who you ask.
That is why it has taken three years of retarded discussions and miles of forum threads. It's in humans nature not to agree. Impossible to make everybody happy. Segwit2x is a good compromise, I hope they move forward with 2MB. Bitcoin cash can run their race, another altcoin wont matter, good to have a choice.
Topic: Educate me: What are the dangers of a block size increase? (Read 369 times)
and to clarify and demystify the fud
A hard fork requires waiting for sufficient consensus.- true: with consensus the risks are minimal to nill
Risk of catastrophic consensus failure - should be reworded: risk of failure without consensus
An emergency hard fork that can achieve consensus can be deployed on a short time period if needed.importance is achieving consensus
Orphan rate amplification, more reorgs and double-spends due to slower propagation speeds only if blocks increment to a large magnitude instead of small increments
European/American pools at more of a disadvantage compared to the Chinese pools - then set up a pool in any 200 countries if america has issues
"Congestion" concerns can be solved with mempool improvements including transaction eviction - but still doesnt solve the need for more capacity
No amount of max block size would support all the world's future transactions on the main blockchain - no one needs world domination by midnight, chill!!
(various types of off-chain transactions are the only long-term solution) - nope offchain solutions are just the corporate desire to get back to 'managed funds'
Fast block propagation is either not clearly viable, or (eg, IBLT) creates centralised controls.- it is viable if you think logically and rational, not exagerated and beyond rational
Damage to decentralization
Larger blocks make full nodes more expensive to operate.- it is viable if you think logically and rational, not exagerated and beyond rational[/color]
Therefore, larger blocks lead to less hashers running full nodes, - hashers dont even run nodes. unscrew a asic you wont find a hard drive
which leads to centralized entities having more power, which makes Bitcoin require more trust, which weakens Bitcoins value proposition. - pure fud
Bitcoin is only useful if it is decentralized because centralization requires trust. Bitcoins value proposition is trustlessness. - which is why offchain is not the solution
The larger the hash-rate a single miner controls, - hashrate and blocksize are 2 separate entities and have no impact on each other
the more centralized Bitcoin becomes and the more trust using Bitcoin requires. risk of centralisation is lower compared to centralising via offchain
Running your own full node while mining rather than giving another entity the right to your hash-power decreases the hash-rate of large miners.
- asics(hashers) have been around for 4 years, and have not had a hard drive/node/blockchain in a "hasher" since..
Those who have hash-power are able to control their own hash power if and only if they run a full node. - again 4 years out of date fud.
Less individuals who control hash-power will run full nodes if running one becomes more expensive[4]. - incremental growth naturally and logically and rationally is not a problem
if you see people cry about "gigabyte blocks" or "visa comparison" .. just tell them thats the 20+ year plan... not the 6 month-year plan. then tell them to stop scaring off small increments every 6 months-year purely because of pretending the 20 year goal has to happen now
20 years AGO people were using floppy disks only holding 1.4mb but physically larger than post-it notes, now its 256 GB the size of a fingernail
20 years AGO people were using 56k dial up... now its Fibre and 5G
so the future has much capability.. once you think logically instead of exagerating
A hard fork requires waiting for sufficient consensus.- true: with consensus the risks are minimal to nill
Risk of catastrophic consensus failure - should be reworded: risk of failure without consensus
An emergency hard fork that can achieve consensus can be deployed on a short time period if needed.importance is achieving consensus
Orphan rate amplification, more reorgs and double-spends due to slower propagation speeds only if blocks increment to a large magnitude instead of small increments
European/American pools at more of a disadvantage compared to the Chinese pools - then set up a pool in any 200 countries if america has issues
"Congestion" concerns can be solved with mempool improvements including transaction eviction - but still doesnt solve the need for more capacity
No amount of max block size would support all the world's future transactions on the main blockchain - no one needs world domination by midnight, chill!!
(various types of off-chain transactions are the only long-term solution) - nope offchain solutions are just the corporate desire to get back to 'managed funds'
Fast block propagation is either not clearly viable, or (eg, IBLT) creates centralised controls.- it is viable if you think logically and rational, not exagerated and beyond rational
Damage to decentralization
Larger blocks make full nodes more expensive to operate.- it is viable if you think logically and rational, not exagerated and beyond rational[/color]
Therefore, larger blocks lead to less hashers running full nodes, - hashers dont even run nodes. unscrew a asic you wont find a hard drive
which leads to centralized entities having more power, which makes Bitcoin require more trust, which weakens Bitcoins value proposition. - pure fud
Bitcoin is only useful if it is decentralized because centralization requires trust. Bitcoins value proposition is trustlessness. - which is why offchain is not the solution
The larger the hash-rate a single miner controls, - hashrate and blocksize are 2 separate entities and have no impact on each other
the more centralized Bitcoin becomes and the more trust using Bitcoin requires. risk of centralisation is lower compared to centralising via offchain
Running your own full node while mining rather than giving another entity the right to your hash-power decreases the hash-rate of large miners.
- asics(hashers) have been around for 4 years, and have not had a hard drive/node/blockchain in a "hasher" since..
Those who have hash-power are able to control their own hash power if and only if they run a full node. - again 4 years out of date fud.
Less individuals who control hash-power will run full nodes if running one becomes more expensive[4]. - incremental growth naturally and logically and rationally is not a problem
if you see people cry about "gigabyte blocks" or "visa comparison" .. just tell them thats the 20+ year plan... not the 6 month-year plan. then tell them to stop scaring off small increments every 6 months-year purely because of pretending the 20 year goal has to happen now
20 years AGO people were using floppy disks only holding 1.4mb but physically larger than post-it notes, now its 256 GB the size of a fingernail
20 years AGO people were using 56k dial up... now its Fibre and 5G
so the future has much capability.. once you think logically instead of exagerating
How can you not find any info?
Anyway, here it https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy#Arguments_in_opposition_to_increasing_the_blocksize
Anyway, here it https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy#Arguments_in_opposition_to_increasing_the_blocksize
I am in need of some education and have searched, but cannot find concise information. What exactly are the dangers of a block size increase? The ones who oppose an increase, are they users/hodlers or miners?
Jump to: